Esparsen v. Ridley's Family Markets, Inc.

Filing 121

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER: Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice on the merits, and judgment shall enter accordingly. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/31/2024. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01556-RM-JPO
JONATHAN ESPARSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDLEY’S FAMILY MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) proceeded to a oneday bench trial to determine whether Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff overtime premiums
for the fifteen weeks he worked as an Assistant Store Director (“ASD”) and was paid a biweekly salary of $2,099. Having heard the parties’ testimony and considered the evidence
presented and the entire record, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law 1 and enters the following orders.
I.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of Colorado.

2.

Defendant is a Wyoming corporation licensed to do business in Colorado that

does business in Colorado.

1

The findings of fact include any conclusions of law that are deemed findings of fact, and vice
versa.

3.

Defendant operates multiple retail grocery stores in many states, including in

Colorado.
4.

Defendant’s annual gross revenues exceed $500,000.

5.

At all relevant times, Defendant has had two or more employees engaged in

interstate commerce.
6.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as the ASD at its store in Gypsum,

Colorado, from November 27, 2017, through March 9, 2018, during which time Defendant paid
Plaintiff a fixed bi-weekly salary of $2,099.
7.

Plaintiff was paid a fixed salary regardless of how many hours he worked.

8.

Most of Defendant’s ASDs at the Gypsum store and its other stores have been

salaried, though there have been exceptions.
9.

Defendant generally expected ASDs to work ten-hour shifts, five to six days per

10.

Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work for more than forty hours per

week.

workweek, but he did not keep track of the hours he worked. 2
11.

Plaintiff was not paid overtime premiums at one and one-half times their regular

rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week.
12.

Defendant’s ASDs’ primary duties and responsibilities included supervising retail

workers, motivating and inspiring co-workers, adjusting schedules, training and evaluating

2

At trial, Plaintiff disputed Defendant’s record of his hours worked but gave vague and, at times,
inconsistent accounts of his hours worked; but in any event, he does not claim damages for
working more than 110 hours in any two-week pay period.
2

employees, tracking weekly results and trends for business forecasting, executing weekly sales
and marketing objectives, and resolving escalated customer complaints.
13.

These primary duties and responsibilities included such things as entering sales

information, instructing subordinate employees, making decisions regarding merchandizing and
displays, managing and purchasing inventory, making bank deposits, being responsible for the
physical store facility, resolving customer complaints, and, in conjunction with the Store
Director, managing all aspects of the retail food and drug store to which they are assigned.
14.

As an ASD, Plaintiff had these primary duties and responsibilities.

15.

As an ASD, Plaintiff regularly performed some or all of these duties and

responsibilities, including without limitation having keys to the store that he managed; securing
the store at the end of the day and opening the store in the morning; monitoring, maintaining, and
upkeeping the physical store facility; regulatory duties and responsibilities; and handling
customer complaints.
16.

As an ASD, Plaintiff had keys to the store and access to the safe.

17.

As an ASD, Plaintiff pulled from the shelves items that were expired.

18.

As an ASD, Plaintiff had to call employees to come in if an employee scheduled

to come in was not available to work.
19.

As an ASD, Plaintiff reported to Defendant’s president that an hourly employee

had punched in and then left the store, and the employee was subsequently terminated.
20.

In performing these duties, Plaintiff exercised discretion and independent

judgment.

3

21.

Store Directors and ASDs work closely together to manage the store to which

they have been assigned, and Plaintiff worked closely with his Store Director.
22.

Plaintiff and his Store Director worked partially overlapping schedules, and when

the Store Director was not at the store, Plaintiff was the senior manager on site.
23.

More than half the time Plaintiff was working at the Gypsum store, he was the

main person in charge.
24.

During his lunch breaks, Plaintiff was frequently interrupted by employees who

came to him to resolve issues related to running the store.
II.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
25.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.
26.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the

Colorado Wage Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-101, et seq. (“CWA”) and Colorado Minimum Wage
Order No. 34, 7 C.C.R. § 1103-1 (“CMWO”) because these state law claims form part of the
same case or controversy as the FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
27.

Plaintiff was paid a salary of not less than $684 per week.

28.

Plaintiff’s primary duty was the performance of office or non-manual work

directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendant and its
customers.
29.

Plaintiff’s primary duty included the exercise of discretion and independent

judgement with respect to matters of significance.

4

30.

Plaintiff was properly classified as exempt under the administrative exemption

under federal and state law.
31.

Defendant acted in good faith in classifying Plaintiff as exempt, and reasonably

relied upon administrative regulations, guidance, orders, and industry practice in reasonably
concluding that Plaintiff was properly classified as exempt.
32.

Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was

misclassified under the FLSA, the CWA, and the CMWO.
III.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the testimony and other evidence at trial, the Court

additionally finds that Plaintiff’s overall version of the relevant events and details lacks
credibility. Although other employees might not have treated Plaintiff with the respect he
believes he deserved as an ASD, it is clear that he was not hired as simply a cashier or shelf
stocker. His testimony to the contrary is not consistent with how Defendant generally hired store
directors and ASDs to manage its stores or the fact that he received a salary regardless of the
number of hours worked. His testimony that other employees frequently interrupted him during
his lunch break because they needed him to resolve issues related to running the store
undermines any notion that he did not have discretion over matters of significance at the store.
Moreover, during his brief tenure at the store, he was responsible for having an employee fired.
Plaintiff’s testimony that he accepted the position as an ASD without any discussion about
overtime pay or the schedule he would work is simply not persuasive. In light of his testimony
that he typically worked eleven-hour days without having to clock in or out, his contention that
he expected to be paid overtime is equally unpersuasive. In short, the Court is left with the

5

impression that Plaintiff accepted a salaried position that was properly classified as exempt from
FLSA’s overtime requirements. When the job failed to live up to Plaintiff’s expectations, he
attempted to manufacture a post hoc claim for unpaid overtime. However, the evidence falls
well short of establishing an FLSA violation by Defendant.
Therefore, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the merits.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
Senior United States District Judge

6